Overall, the vast majority of "marginal constituencies" are in those areas doing well. The poor bastards who live in areas like here in South Yorkshire already vote Labour and have little option but to do so. The Tories are not going to do anything for places like this.
Of course, what should happen is the rise of a third party willing to tackle this divide. But, it hasn't happened yet.
It's worth noting as well that an ongoing migration into the SE has been continually subsidised by every government since Thatcher, which of course helps make it all a bit of a vicious circle.
a) Yet another layer of government, who is going to pay for it?
(linked to)
b) What is the point of another powerless talking shop?
(separate from)
c) Stirred fears in local councils that they were going to lose powers to the body.
d) Played on "national spirit" suggesting that what was really needed was an English parliament, not anything more regional.
That's about it really. The biggest factor was that there is a whole set of people in the UK who are very distrustful and disdainful of politicians and the No campaing was able to frame the idea as: "Do you want more of your money taken from you in taxes to pay another set of politicians in Newcastle/York/etc."
The Yes camp were useless, but the proposals were pretty weak too. Control freaks at Westminister were not willing to give the local assemblies enough powers to make them viable.
After much effort, the Office for National Statistics now produces figures for gross value added per head at the level of parts of UK cities and small rural areas. Again, these provide little comfort for Mr Brown. The figures for 2003, released late last year, also show conclusively that the richest areas tended to have benefited from faster growth since 1997 than poorer areas. Prof Andrew Henley of Swansea University studied the figures up to 2001 in great detail. He found that the economy under Mr Blair and Mr Brown was diverging faster even than it had under the then Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s. "It's shocking, really," he says. "Despite EU structural funds [for poor areas], we had more dispersion between 1995 and 2001 than between 1977 and 1995." What seems to be happening, according to Prof Henley, is a divergence on a local as well as a national level: "Just as London and the South-East are pulling away from the rest of the UK, so Cardiff is pulling away from the real periphery in Wales." The pattern becomes clear from a simple analysis of the hot spots in the economy and the weakest localities. Half of the 10 top performing localities were from London and the South-East and they all enjoyed increases in prosperity per head of 3.5 per cent or more a year on average since 1997. In contrast, 11 localities have suffered a decrease in gross value added per person since 1997, and four of the bottom five are in far-flung parts of Scotland or Wales.
Prof Andrew Henley of Swansea University studied the figures up to 2001 in great detail. He found that the economy under Mr Blair and Mr Brown was diverging faster even than it had under the then Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s. "It's shocking, really," he says. "Despite EU structural funds [for poor areas], we had more dispersion between 1995 and 2001 than between 1977 and 1995."
What seems to be happening, according to Prof Henley, is a divergence on a local as well as a national level: "Just as London and the South-East are pulling away from the rest of the UK, so Cardiff is pulling away from the real periphery in Wales."
The pattern becomes clear from a simple analysis of the hot spots in the economy and the weakest localities. Half of the 10 top performing localities were from London and the South-East and they all enjoyed increases in prosperity per head of 3.5 per cent or more a year on average since 1997.
In contrast, 11 localities have suffered a decrease in gross value added per person since 1997, and four of the bottom five are in far-flung parts of Scotland or Wales.
